What ground? The man hasn't got a leg to stand on. He should have recused himself from any comments or any other kind of dealings with the current financial crisis due to his history on the subject, but that would entail having a conscience. That the Republicans haven't insisted upon this point underscores their own lack of leadership and betrayal of their historical stewardship of economic matters. "Party of small government" my pasty white middle-aged ex-Republican-now-Libertarian ass.

I know all the partisans are busy trying to nail each other as the big culprit in this mess. Dems say it was the CDS's, credit default swaps, favored by Republicans (and Bill Clinton BTW) that created this crisis. Republicans insist it was lax lending practices and sub-prime loans favored by Democrats that did us in.

Guess what - you're both right. So stop pointing fingers and get to work fixing the problem... if you can.

And further, anyone who listens to Barney Frank on investing DESERVES to lose their money!!!

I really wished O'Reilly would have allowed Frank to explain himself. I'm eager for an explanation. Instead viewers were cheated with a shouting match. Kudos to Frank for even bothering to appear on O'Reilly where he expected to not get a fair shake and promptly had his expectation fulfilled. O'Reilly at his worst. There's tons of inculcating video available. Show some. Then have Frank explain himself when he claims to have urged for closer regulation. All I've seen are clips to the contrary. All that interview accomplished was to reinforce O'Reilly as an impossible boor.

Bluster is no substitute for substance. And it's really too bad, because there is plenty of it to be had. Frank has his hands dirty in this whole mess and he really has gotten a pass. But Bill failed to deliver.

Here is the excerpt from the show that ran immediately before your clip. It gives the full context. It shows Rep. Frank, House Financial Service Committee chairman, telling people on TV in July 2008 that "Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound. They are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investments these days going back. They are in good shape going forward...Their prospects going forward are very solid."

Come on!

Frank shares complicity in this massive meltdown.

Sez Wiki...

"In 2003, Frank opposed Bush administration and Congressional Republican efforts for the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. [30] Under the plan a new agency would have been created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that were the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. "These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis," Frank said. He added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

PS...In the matter of Representative Barney Frank on July 26, 1990, the vote was 408 to 18. See this NYT article. At the time, Rep. Frank said, "''I think members of Congress rise or fall on their own individual records.'' Maybe if he had had the decency then, the nation might have been spared a little of this financial cataclysm.

People seem to think it's the pinnacle of professionalism when it's done on Fox. Anywhere else and it's just more evidence of left-leaning elitisit MSM bias. And we wouldn't want O'Reilly to be too...phlegmatic.

Although Frank voted against it, H.R. 1461 [109th]: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which would have increased oversight of Fannie/Freddie, passed 331 to 90. The bill was criticized by George W. Bush, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Enterprise Institute.

The corresponding Senate bill died in committee, despite McCain's belated cosponsorship (introduced by Chuck Hagel in January 2005, McCain didn't sign on until May 2006, ten months after the last committee action).

Hey, I know there are criticisms of Barney Frank. But just yelling at him to confess is not effective. He behaved effectively in the service of his own interests, and it made O'Reilly look like a fool, and I may agree with O'Reilly that Frank ought to be more public spirited ... and ashamed of himself over the fiasco.

O'Reilly would be more effective if he spoke English and stopped yelling, but he is from Long Island and can't help himself (think Alec Baldwin yelling at his kid, Billy Joel yelling at Brinkley, etc.). There is something in the water out there.

But that does not mean O'Reilly was wrong. Barney Frank is a flat out liar. O'Reilly was too busy trying to cause himself to have an aneurism to mention facts like Frank's boyfriend working for Fannie, Contributions by Freddie and Fannie to Obama, Dodd and Frank, Frank's "rolling the dice" comment about these institutions, and we could go on and on. A quieter, less bombastic, and more competent interviewer could have removed Frank's arms, legs, and internal organs like a high school biology dissection experiment without Frank being able to wiggle out or even protest. Now that would have been fun to watch. O'Reilly missed an opportunity.

Aren't conservatives embarrassed to have people like O'Reilly and Hannity representing them in the media?

Why, yes it does. My conservative portion does indeed get embarrassed sometimes by those two. On the other hand, that portion is also greatly entertained. They are, after all, entertainers. Aren't they? I could be wrong here. On the other other hand my liberal portion really gets embarrassed by Alan Colmes. Now there's a sniveling little snot-head for you. Whenever that guy comes on, and he comes on too often to suit me, I automatically fall into an Alan Colmes imitation that's quite obnoxious. It involves pinching my nose and speaking rapidly with dialogue he supplies but making sure to include the phrase "I must interject with this irrelevancy because I haven't heard the sound of my own voice for a whole thirty seconds and I'm being paid by the word."

Frank was easy pickings for a takedown, but nnnnoooooooo, Bill's gotta do his ballistic schtick, which must mean the man is low on lovin' or SSRI or ethanol or all three.

I do agree that O'Reilly is a blowhard, but in this case, he spoke for a lot of people who feel Barney Frank is a joke on the Banking Committee, and that he conducted himself with utter flippancy about his mismanagement.

And with all due respect, no one, including O'Reilly can bring up the fact that his ex-boyfriend was a Fannie Mae exec (they broke up in 1998).

Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae were creatures of the Democratic Party. They are knee deep in their failure.

If O'Reilly bring this point up to Frank's face, however, his career might be toast.

I'm sure you meant to say, "for going off on Frank." Or, was it "for going down on Frank" ?

Must be the latter because everyone knows O'Really is a cocksucker. The concept that investors lost millions because they were induced to invest in something because Barney said he thought things were improving going forward, is a crock of shit. O'Really is a disgusting buffoon, who I hope has a heart attack from his belligerant rantings.

Listerine, gay people no longer will allow your hate speech and threats of violence to go unanswered. You will be riddled with bullets head to toe and then be demolished. Your chopped up, gift-wrapped remains will be sent to the O'Really show with a little soy sauce add for flavor, you tasteless, worthless, son of a bitch.

I just don't think it's appropriate to talk to a senator that way, whether you agree or disagree with him. And I'm amazed that nobody else is saying that. This is something that should get O'Reilly fired.

It falls into that weird ethical space where hockey and other professional sports fights fall. Why the heck aren't the police called in and athletes arrested if they slug someone?

On the other other hand my liberal portion really gets embarrassed by Alan Colmes. Now there's a sniveling little snot-head for you. Whenever that guy comes on, and he comes on too often to suit me, I automatically fall into an Alan Colmes imitation that's quite obnoxious. It involves pinching my nose and speaking rapidly with dialogue he supplies but making sure to include the phrase "I must interject with this irrelevancy because I haven't heard the sound of my own voice for a whole thirty seconds and I'm being paid by the word."

What is getting progressively funnier and funnier is the interaction between Colmes and Dick Morris. Colmes talks over Morris with DNC talking points, often totally disconnected from reality, and Morris accuses him of parroting DNC talking points, but often can't be heard because Colmes is talking over him. A night or two ago, Morris made snide remarks about Colmes in his closing remarks, when everyone is supposed to be making nice all around. Great fun, but Colmes is becoming increasingly irritating with this.

The talking over the opponent with talking points like that is a well tested technique practiced by any number of, in particular, Democratic spokesmen (and women). But this is unique, with one of the hosts doing so.